AALE ZEHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I MALERKOTLA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9299/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051754202525 August 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was dismissed in default. This decision was based on the fact that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner for the second consecutive occasion. The Court also noted that despite the Registry informing the petitioner's counsel about the listing of the case after remand by the Supreme Court, there was no appearance. Furthermore, no amendment application was filed to include a challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. No specific issue was left undecided; the dismissal was procedural.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aale Zehra, is challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Malerkotla, and others. This is the second time the case has come before the High Court, following a remand by the Supreme Court through an order dated April 10, 2026. The Registry had informed the petitioner's counsel about the listing of the case. No amendment application was filed by the petitioner to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter was listed for decision on August 25, 2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of the petitioner's appearance and representation. (Question of law). 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for challenging the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, given the absence of an amendment application. (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's contentions: No arguments were recorded for the petitioner as none appeared. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel, would likely argue that the petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to pursue the case, especially after a remand from the Supreme Court and the absence of any amendment to challenge the specific section.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 109

CWP-9299-2025 Date of decision : 25.08.2026

Aale Zehra

.…. Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Malerkotla and others ..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : None for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel, for the respondent(s)-revenue.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the second consecutive occasion when none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and this is in spite of the fact that the Registry has informed learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the listing of this case after remand by the Supreme Court through order dated 10.04.2026. 2.

No amendment application has also been filed to include the challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Dismissed in default.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

25.08.2026

[SUNISH BINDLISH] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.08.27 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →